What do the leading secular historians say about Jesus?

A lot of things are written about Jesus, by believers, sceptics and everyone in between. But what do the experts (historians at leading universities) say?

Ken, a reader of this blog, asked a question about this recently in comments on another topic, so I thought a separate post might help clarify.

Facts and belief

Beliefs are simply what we each think – about all sorts of things. Generally, we base our beliefs, at least in part, on good evidence or facts. For example, I learn the fact that 99% of the world lives on less income than I do, so I think (believe) that I have a responsibility to alleviate poverty.

Or, I learn the scientists have concluded that the world is warming due to human use of fossil fuels, and that this will have disastrous consequences, so I think (believe) that I should vote for politicians who will do something to prevent this. Note that in this case the facts are not absolutely certain (in science they almost never are), but the expert scientists say they are highly probable – and only a minority of scientists disagree.

Facts and belief about Jesus

It is the same with Jesus. There are historical facts which most expert historians tell us are probable, with very few dissenting, and other evidence that they are not in such agreement about. And then there are opinions (beliefs) about Jesus, all of us have them, including historians, but we differ widely.

Facts about Jesus

Here I am just summarising what historians regard as probable historic facts about Jesus. Some of these historians are christians, some are not, but they are not writing about their beliefs, just about the historical evidence.

Jesus existed

Almost without exception, expert historians believe a man named Jesus, recognisable as the one described in the gospels, lived and died in first century Palestine – See Was Jesus a real person? for some of the reasons why they believe this, and Quotes on Jesus as a historical person for quotes from some of the world’s most respected historians.

Jesus’ life and death

Secular historians, whether christian or not, broadly agree on the basic facts of Jesus’ life (see Jesus in history). EP Sanders, just about the most respected NT scholar of the past 30 years, and cautiously sceptical, wrote in The Historical Figure of Jesus, p10-11:

I shall first offer a list of statements about Jesus that meet two standards: they are almost beyond dispute; and they belong to the framework of his life, and especially of his public career. (A list of everything that we know about Jesus would be appreciably longer.)

Jesus was born c 4 BCE near the time of the death of Herod the Great;
he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village;
he was baptised by John the Baptist;
he called disciples;
he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities);
he preached ‘the kingdom of God’;
about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover;
he created a disturbance in the Temple area;
he had a final meal with the disciples;
he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest;he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.

Maurice Casey and Michael Grant add a few other items to Sanders’ cautious list:

he preached repentance, forgiveness and the coming of the kingdom of God in rural and small-town Galilee;

he was known in his day as a healer and exorcist (Casey says he was a folk healer);

Jesus predicted his death and resurrection and he believed his death would be redemptive;

Jesus’ tomb was really empty and/or his disciples “saw” him (in what sense is uncertain) after his death.

There are of course scholars who contest many or most of these items, but they are apparently in the minority, as most scholars I have read would endorse Sanders’ list at least.

Sanders concludes:

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ….. the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism.

Beliefs about Jesus

While most scholars believe Jesus was known as a miracle worker, not all believe he actually performed miracles. And while most scholars believe either Jesus’ tomb was found empty, or his disciples saw visions of him, or both, not all believe he was physically raised from death. While some scholars believe he was divine, others do not.

None of the scholars I have referenced here (Sanders, Casey, Grant) are (or were in the case of Grant) christians; they are/were agnostics or atheists.

My beliefs about Jesus

I believe Jesus was divine, that he was resurrected, and that he really performed miracles. These are my conclusions after considering the evidence referred to above. Obviously other people consider the same evidence and come to different conclusions (beliefs).

Later edit:

It is not my purpose here to present the case for why I believe these things about Jesus, but I base my belief on these things:

Luke (especially) and the other gospel writers, including John, have been shown to be reasonably reliable reporters. Classical historians (i.e. ancient historians not specialising in NT history) generally accept the gospels as useful historical documents. It is reasonable to trust these biographies – see Are the gospels historical? and Archaeology and John’s gospel.

Most scholars agree that Jesus did not make overt claims to divinity, and scholars are divided about whether he made any less overt claims. But I believe a number of passages, most of which would be regarded as authentic by most scholars, give enough of an indication that he did claim divinity – see Jesus – son of God?.

Comments

unkleE, I appreciate your creating a new blog on this subject. I don’t however see how you can derive that Jesus was divine from the comments you quoted above. I have no doubt saying Jesus most likely existed or that people claimed he was a healer. I think you have to reach pretty far to get to him being divine.

Where is this overwhelming consensus or historical facts that would make you think he is divine ?

I thought Casey doesn’t think there was an empty tomb. Doesn’t he consider it a later development, even though it’s already present in gMark, but absent in the (according to him) later letters of Paul?

Almost without exception, expert historians believe a man named Jesus, recognisable as the one described in the gospels,

Call foul.

The character in the gospels is NOT recognised as the itinerant preacher non-christian historians consider existed.
This statement is disingenuous.
The biblical character was a work of fiction. A miracle working man god. There is no evidence whatsoever for the biblical Jesus. None.
There was never such an historical person.

Ken, you are right, I left that out. I will amend the post to cover that point. Thanks. (Now done.)

IgnorantiaNescia, you too are right, that is why I wrote “and/or”. Casey believes the “appearances” happened (with a natural explanation), as does Sanders and even the Jesus Seminar, while Grant believed the tomb was empty, as does Robin Lane Fox. A survey by Gary Habermas indicates about 75% of scholars accept the truth of the empty tomb, and “Few critical scholars reject the notion that, after Jesus’ death, the early Christians had real experiences of some sort.”

I have simply quoted from some of the scholars most respected by their peers. Can you point to one place where I have misquoted or misrepresented them?

Why have you not quoted Richard Carrier? He is a highly qualified historian?
Or what about Robert Price?

I have only quoted a few scholars and they are all at the centre of scholarship, and none of the three I referenced here are christians, and hence cannot be considered biased. Neither Carrier nor Price can be considered to be at the centre of scholarship nor respected by their peers, neither has a position at a respected university, and they have clear biases.

Can you explain why you prefer two biased non-respected scholars rather then the consensus of the best unbiased scholars?

I don’t care how liberal EP Sanders might be, he is a Christian.

Can you give me a reference on this?

That ”almost” is a real nuisance.

Not for me it isn’t, though it may be for you. Would you say “almost beyond dispute” means 95% probable? So why are you pinning your beliefs on the 5%?

This disclaimer is from your above link to “Was Jesus raised from the dead” , “Notice that these ‘facts’ do not necessarily imply belief in the resurrection, but acceptance of these facts may give support to belief in the resurrection.”

You keep implying there is overwhelming evidence to support what you claim, but when reading the “Fine Print” , the overwhelming evidence isn’t there. You also admit many scholars look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions.

The only thing overwhelming about this subject is the number of varying opinions from the same material.

What you fail to admit is it takes faith on your part because the evidence just isn’t there. Jesus is no more divine than Honi the Circle Maker . The Emperors of Rome had motivation to make Christianity the religion of the land, but Divinity was not part of it.

MK 16:11 , “10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.”

LK 24:19- , ““He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place.

Jn 20:1- “Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

These 3 passages clearly show the Disciples didn’t believe in Jesus’ divinity or resurrection . The last verse shows that even Mary Magdalene didn’t believe he had resurrected but that his body had been moved.

Of course you can also find scripture to argue the contrary. In a court of law such evidence would be thrown out as unreliable just as it should be here.

Ken did you read the part in this post where I distinguished between “historical facts” and “beliefs”?

The “overwhelming evidence” is for the historical facts as outlined in this post. The resurrection is among my beliefs.

Of course faith as well as evidence is involved in my beliefs and I have never denied it. But faith is not involved in the historical facts – which is obvious because historians who are christians and atheists can conclude the same about the facts.

Faith was never expected to be enough. This is why the biblical Jesus had to come to earth according to the story to prove there was a divinity above who cared for his chosen people , the Jews. (Oh I forgot, later the gentiles were somehow included too).

“Of course faith as well as evidence is involved in my beliefs and I have never denied it. But faith is not involved in the historical facts – which is obvious because historians who are christians and atheists can conclude the same about the facts.

I hope that clarifies things.”

Not really. Your answer sounds like the type we get from our American Politicians over here. 🙂

The ancients believed that a baby was produced 100 % from the seed of a man and that the woman’s function was to carry the seed until it was born. This is why early Christianity wasn’t concerned about “Original Sin” and the fact that Mary , as a human, was born a sinner because Jesus was 100 % from the father (Holy Spirit) .

That was until 1828 when Karl Ernst von Baer discovered the “female egg” and together with the male sperm created an embryo.

At this time many scholars were starting to question Jesus’ divinity as a result of this discovery. It was then the Catholic Church was forced to come up with a solution which they called the immaculate conception making Mary born without sin.

Mary is quoted in scripture as thanking God for her salvation confirming that she knew she was a sinner. Consequently , Jesus was born a sinner too , making him NOT divine.

This is why “The Church” never intended for the populace to be able to read their own bible. Johanne Gutenberg’s printing press loosened the chains that held the bible to the pulpit. Yes, it was chained to the pulpit so individuals (who could read) couldn’t take it home to read it for themselves.

Nor did “The Church” ever expect science to expose their myth through the discovery of the female egg.

Reference? To what? That Saunders is a Christian> Are you serious? Just Wiki him.

So you consider Carrier is not respected by his peers and is biased?
Smile. And Christians are not biased?
How many degrees and doctorates must Carrier have before he is considered ”respected” in your eyes and knows what he is talking about?
He is easily the equal of Bart Ehrman. Although he hasn’t yet found a publisher able to market him as well as Bart. maybe he will in the future?
He has debated many of the most respected(?) Christian apologists, including William Lane Craig. Although he is nowhere near as charismatic as Craig he knows his stuff, make no mistake.
Price was part of the Jesus Seminar. That isn’t good enough for you?

Follow where the evidence leads.
Isnt that at least an honest approach to such an investigation, unklee?

The ”facts” you like to quote are gleaned from which source?
The bible , of course.
I can read from that – as can you. And have, many times.
If either of us cited these ‘facts’ would that make us scholars?
Even people like Craig, Lacona or Habermaas have access to this material and I don’t doubt they trot it out as well.
So how does quoting such a list enhance a person’s scholarly standing?
Well, in actual fact, it probably doesn’t. Not really.

Not for me it isn’t, though it may be for you. Would you say “almost beyond dispute” means 95% probable? So why are you pinning your beliefs on the 5%?

Who says I am pinning my hopes on 5%?
Saunders could have meant, 80%. or even 75%.
Are you going to argue semantics and try to put words in Saunder’s mouth, now?
If there is doubt – no matter how small – then they are not sure and cannot claim beyond dispute.
He hasn’t even said beyond reasonable doubt.
And he doesn’t need to does he? Because,for a Christian, Faith is there to fill in the corners and the uncomfortable omissions and unscientific anomalies, and blatant misrepresentations and obvious Christian interpolations and utterly ridiculous nonsense (zombie apocalypse) and failed prophecies and fraudulent claims.
The list is exhaustive.
Faith, like a coat of paint, covers a multitude of sins, as the saying goes.
Faith always seems to precede evidence for the religious. And where the evidence is shakey, faith bolsters it. Where evidence is non existent, Faith covers it.
This is why faith is such a vital part of religion and why it has always been hammered into believers.
When people talk about, losing faith it is because they are now looking solely at the evidence. And when this occurs, people walk away from religion because the evidence does not support the claims.
And that is fact.

If your ”experts” aren’t 100% then I sure as heck am not going to throw my lot in wtth them, that is for sure.

2 Responses to Christian beliefs in a nutshell
Christopher C. Randolph says:
March 27, 2013 at 9:08 pm
You left out faithfulness. Believing beyond a shadow of doubt that Jesus is God; our Lord and Savior. What you said must proceed from one’s faith or else it is meaningless or worse.

Hi Ken, I have read through your several comments, and I’m still not sure if you agree there is a difference between historical “facts” (probabilities) which are determined by historians of any belief, and the beliefs that some people (some historians, me and many others) draw from those “facts”.

I still think this is the key question, and I’m interested to know what you think. Thanks.

“So you are saying there are no historical facts for the resurrection that it is merely your belief ?”

No I have said consistently that there are a number of historical facts generally agreed upon by historians, and that includes some facts about the resurrection. My belief that the resurrection really occurred is built on those facts. As I said in the revision to my post which you prompted me to make: “I believe the evidence for the resurrection is best explained by it actually happening – see Was Jesus raised from the dead?“

“Reference? To what? That Saunders is a Christian> Are you serious? Just Wiki him.”

I am not surprised that you have no reference for this, because have spent a lot of time trying to find out Sanders’ (not Saunders) beliefs, and I haven’t found any reliable reference to his being a christian. So until and if you offer this evidence, I will go with the evidence I have found:

1. He is notoriously reluctant to say too much, and the only self identification I could find was from Wikipedia where he described himself as a “secularized Protestant”. His own biographical comments make no mention of any christian belief or conversion. And in this interview, he explains that he doesn’t believe in the Jesus of modern christianity, but he does believe in following his ethical teachings.

“So you consider Carrier is not respected by his peers and is biased?”
“How many degrees and doctorates must Carrier have before he is considered ”respected” in your eyes and knows what he is talking about? ….. Price was part of the Jesus Seminar. That isn’t good enough for you?”

Scholarly reputation, as far as I can determine, is based on three things:

1. Qualifications (a relevant PhD plus membership of professional bodies).
2. Current scholarship (working in the field in a university or research organisation plus publishing in peer-reviewed journals).
3. Respect of peers (again, publication plus citing in journals and books).

Now Carrier and Price have the degrees, no question, and so do many, many others. But Carrier doesn’t have a job in the field, and I don’t think he has published much (if you disagree, I’d like to see citations). Price has worked at good universities, but I understand he recently lost his job at an established university, and now works for the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, which doesn’t seem to have a very good reputation. And I’m told that he hasn’t published his more outlandish mythicist ideas in any peer-reviewed journals (again, if you disagree, I’d like to see citations). Finally, Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have both severely criticised both Price and Carrier, and a number of other scholars have criticised Carrier, so I cannot see much evidence of their being respected by their peers. And I say Carrier is biased because he held mythicist views before he even began his history PhD, so he knew the answer he was looking for.

Compare all that to Sanders, and others I reference, and you’ll understand why I stick to Sanders.

I think this is long enough for one comment. May I now repeat my question:

Can you explain why you prefer two biased non-respected scholars rather then the consensus of the best unbiased scholars?

Hi Ken, I have read through your several comments, and I’m still not sure if you agree there is a difference between historical “facts” (probabilities) which are determined by historians of any belief, and the beliefs that some people (some historians, me and many others) draw from those “facts”.

unkleE, no I don’t agree with your definition of “historical facts” when you place in parentheses next to it, “probabilities”. John F Kennedy was assassinated on Nov 22nd, 1963. This isn’t a probability, it is a fact.

That the foundation of the Jewish temple is now where the Dome of the Rock resides is a probability not a fact.

Regardless, I provided 3 NT scriptures which showed how Jesus’s disciples didn’t believe in his resurrection and even Mary M. believed his body had been moved not resurrected. They had hoped he was the Messiah . On the third day , they certainly didn’t believe he was anything but a dead friend and companion.

Regardless of the 19th century fabricated story by the Catholic Church (Immaculate Conception) , Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us. Her egg was part of the embryo that produced Jesus thereby making him a sinner too.

@IgnorantiaNescia, ” Ken, I think you misunderstand UnkleE, he does not claim that the earliest disciples believed Jesus was God.”

Now that I read your statement again, it is really quite silly ! If the disciples didn’t believe Jesus was God, why on earth would anyone else believe it ?????? They would be the best and closest witnesses to Jesus ! I’ve never heard that defense before. LOL

“no I don’t agree with your definition of “historical facts” when you place in parentheses next to it, “probabilities”. John F Kennedy was assassinated on Nov 22nd, 1963”
No history is certain, and certainly no ancient history is. All the information you have provided here is just as subject to that uncertainty as all the information I provide. But high probability (= Sanders’ “almost beyond dispute”) is as good as it gets.

“If the disciples didn’t believe Jesus was God, why on earth would anyone else believe it ?”
If you read the link above, you’ll find that the scholars belief they most likely didn’t believe he was literally divine during his lifetime, though they were in awe of him, and their belief in his divinity grew and became better understood over time. The only real argument among scholars is whether that time was only a few years, or most of the first century.

So where do we get Ken? You continue to be unwilling to accept the consensus of the most respected scholars, and yet make arguments based on a few references from the fringe of scholarship. That is your right, but how can we have thoughtful discussion on those terms? What do you suggest?

unkleE, I provided witnesses to the Bible Story of Jesus’ resurrection. It doesn’t get any better than that. You agree the disciples most likely didn’t believe in Jesus’ divinity during his lifetime. We all grow fonder of the dead as time goes by. So what ? My deceased father has been gone for 12 years. I hold him in higher esteem as time goes on.

There were people in my USA that thought of George Washington as a God after he died. They created a statue of him where the sculptor made the body of Zeus and the head of Washington . It was in our capitol rotunda in Washington DC until the early 1930’s when it was removed because Christian Congressmen were bothered by it. If you look up to the ceiling of the US Capitol , you will see a fresco of Washington in heavenly clouds surrounded by 13 virgins. It’s called the apotheosis of Washington. “From man to God”

This has happened many times throughout history.

Quote all the scholars and all the books you want. The disciples knew Jesus better than anyone. If they didn’t believe in his divinity, why on earth should I?

I just demonstrated how time causes humans to remember their dead loved ones in a higher esteem.

No , you have never suggested that I should believe in Jesus’ divinity. But you have suggested there is compelling evidence and this is why you do. I just don’t see it. And neither do 5 billion other people on this planet.

No, I have never suggested there is compelling evidence of his divinity. It’s that distinction between historical fact and opinions again. I say there is compelling evidence that he lived and did certain things (see the list in the post above – divinity isn’t on the list of things “almost beyond dispute”). On divinity, I say it is my belief based on the evidence.

If you read the post again, you’ll see this is what I wrote. Best wishes.

“unkleE, you can’t have it both ways. In your comments above you make 2 distinctively opposing statements.”
No, I definitely meant both. Here’s an example.

There are certain political and economic facts – the size of the tax base, the policies of the various different parties and factions, the voting system, etc. They are all facts which we can all agree on. But when it comes to choosing who we will vote for, we may all come to different conclusions, because we assess the fact differently – e.g we have different priorities, different political philosophies, etc. So the facts are the same but our political beliefs and choices may be different.

Same here. There are historical “facts” which historians basically agree on, and there are beliefs and choices which we each make based on those facts. With the question of Jesus’ divinity, the scholars agree on a lot (e.g. Jesus did and said many things that led people to be in awe of him and believe he was a healer, perhaps Messiah; the disciples didn’t probably believe Jesus was God in his lifetime, but the christians did believe that before the end of the first century, and there was a gradually process between the two (probably beginning with awe and the experience of “seeing” Jesus after his death, then worship, then belief he was divine in some unspecific way, then formulation of doctrine about his divinity). So those are the facts.

On the basis of those facts, I believe he was indeed divine. Many scholars do too. Many others don’t; neither do you. So those facts don’t compel belief, but they provide a reasonable basis for believe for many of us.

“Did you really just read a blog by a man named George or was it because of my comment which included mentioning George Washington ?”
It really was a blog – this one, George’s blog. Coincidence, eh?

It seems the legend of the divinity of Jesus grew only after he died like so many other legends throughout history.

It also goes along with the confession of Justin Martyr when he said , ” we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.”

I know you will say the difference is Jesus was a real person and Gods like Jupiter were not. No argument from me here.

2,000 years ago many people and things were thought divine. Clement the 4th Pope wrote about a mythical bird called the Phoenix which he believed was real. He used the Phoenix to compare what people believed of it to Jesus.

It seems to me that most everyone has an inner desire to believe in something / someone divine. The problem arises when a group of people feels their’s is exclusive.

I happen to feel we are all divine based on the evidence. We all come from this cosmic dust which makes up the universe. When we look at someone else as exclusively divine, we stop looking at the divinity within and limit our abilities .

@unkleE, thank you for providing the link to George’s Blog. I too believe we can eliminate poverty. I believe it can be eliminated by teaching people they are all divine and given the right tools , they have the ability within to do so. 🙂

This article is misleading. Ed Sanders was not a “secular” historian. He was a new testamemt theolgian by training . And besides that, the “facts” in the list, still have no evidence to back ’em. Conjecture by some scholars, is not factual evidence.

Hi David, I appreciate your reading and commenting. But have you read any of Sanders books? Have you checked how he is viewed by his peers? Or how he describes himself?

1. He is indeed a secular historian or New Testament scholar. There is no christian dogma or theology in his writings, he identifies himself as a “liberal, modern, secularized Protestant”, and most reviewers describe him as agnostic. His research and writing have all been on New Testament history, culture and literature, not christian theology.

But regardless of all that, he is possibly the most respected NT historian/scholar in the world today.

2. If these “facts” have no evidence to back ’em, why do you think virtually all secular scholars accept what I have outlined here? (By secular, I mean scholars working in reputable universities, published in peer reviewed journals or in books by academic publishers, and using accepted critical methods of scholarship.)

I think it’s delusional that anyone would believe in someone being ‘resurrected’ from accounts 2 thousand years ago. Also, I am highly skeptical to say the least that an agnostic or atheist would agree with this.

Thanks for commenting. I’ll let your first comment go by, but your second may be a misunderstanding. It is indeed true that many (probably most) secular, non-christian historians believe either that Jesus’ tomb was empty a short time after his death, or that the disciples had some sort of visionary experiences of him alive (however this might be explained), or both. But it isn’t the case that they mostly believe Jesus really was resurrected. It is the difference between historical conclusions (about which historians can agree whether they are christians or atheists) and beliefs about Jesus drawn from the historical evidence, about which they clearly differ. I hope that explains what this page is and isn’t saying. Thanks.

The veracity of the Christian religion rises or falls on the veracity of the Resurrection and the veracity of the Resurrection rises or falls on the historicity of the alleged post-death appearances of Jesus to his followers. Christians believe that the appearance stories in the Gospels and in the Early Creed are historical facts based primarily on the following:

1. There were so many alleged eyewitnesses to these appearances, sometimes in large groups.
2. These alleged appearances had a dramatic effect on the character of those who witnessed them.
3. These alleged appearances were the impetus for many early Christians to be willing to be tortured and painfully executed for their belief in the veracity of these appearances.
4. These Resurrection appearances were the primary reason for the rapid growth of Christianity.

Question: Are these facts sufficient evidence to believe that a three-day-brain-dead first century corpse really did come back to life possessing supernatural powers; supernatural powers which allowed him to teleport between cities, walk through locked doors, and levitate into space? Before you answer that question I ask you to watch this Youtube video:

In this video, HUNDREDS of very devout, sincere people of faith believe that a woman who has been dead for 20 centuries is appearing to them. I have no doubt that at least some of these “eyewitnesses” would be willing to suffer great persecution and even death defending their belief that this event really happened.

Based on the very large number of eyewitnesses to this event and upon their very intense, sincere belief that this very extra-ordinary event really occurred…should we believe them?

Answer: Absolutely not!

Why? These people are very obviously experiencing an illusion. There is no dead woman to be seen anywhere in the video. Collective human experience would suggest that this is very likely what happened in the first century with the early Christians. The appearance stories in the Early Creed of First Corinthians 15, the earliest description we have of these alleged events, make no mention of a talking, walking, broiled-fish-eating Jesus. If the detailed appearance stories in the Gospels are literary embellishments, perfectly acceptable in a Greco-Roman biography as evangelical Christian New Testament scholar Michael Licona has demonstrated in his recent book, Why are There Differences in the Gospels?, it is quite possible that the actual early Christian appearance claims were based on illusions, similar to the one seen in the Youtube video above.

We have discussed all this before, so I will just explain where I think what you say isn’t true compared to what I believe is true.

“The veracity of the Christian religion rises or falls on the veracity of the Resurrection”

I think it is important to distinguish between what is true (ontology) and what we can reasonably believe is true (epistemology). I certainly believe, with the apostle Paul, that if Jesus wasn’t actually resurrected then christianity is either wrong or worthless, or both. But that is ontology. When it comes to my reasons for believing (epistemology) I don’t believe the resurrection is a strong reason to believe. I believe in Jesus on other grounds, and because I believe he was/is the son of God, I find it easy to believe he was resurrected. If I didn’t believe he was the son of God, as you don’t, I would find it difficult to believe he was resurrected. In assessing truth and evidence, we always must take account of our priors, the things we already have concluded.

So I can understand that you don’t believe in the resurrection, but hopefully you can understand that I, with a different belief in Jesus, would think differently from you. In this regard, you may find this assessment by Jeffrey Lowder interesting.

I didn’t watch your video, but I can answer the argument quite simply. Last year, in early October, about 50,000 people saw something that had never happened in the universe until then. And they WEREN’T seeing an illusion, they saw an actual historical event. The football team I follow won the premiership for the first time in their 50 year history. And I could give you literally thousands of examples where people saw things and reported on them, and their reports were correct. I would guess that for every one reported event that you can argue was an illusion, I could offer hundreds that were factual.

So an apparently illusory event proves nothing, except by being the exception to the general fact that people mostly report things reasonably factually, though doubtless with small variations. So if we have a default about the reports of the “appearances” of Jesus, it should be, based on the evidence, that people generally report what they see and see what they report. If you want to go against that generality, you need to offer evidence. It is noteworthy, as we have discussed before, that even many non-believing historians believe the disciples did indeed see visions of him, the only question (which none of us can answer with certainty) is how we explain those visions.

So I don’t see anything in what you say that affects what I believe, even though you find it convincing. The resurrection isn’t the foundation of my belief but the icing on the cake (to mix metaphors terribly). If you want to attack my belief in christianity (not sure why you’d bother, but that’s OK), you’ll have to first attack the consensus of secular historians and the conclusions we can reasonably draw from them, plus science, philosophy and people’s experiences of God. But I’m happy to discuss those things if you want to.

Hi Gary, it is cool that you can contact Ehrman and he will reply, but I don’t think his answer was very useful.

For a start, he doesn’t offer any evidence, just an opinion. I checked Google Scholar and found that the paper has been cited 23 times, including by James Crossley, who is definitely a critical scholar (and an atheist), and it is cited in other academic journals too. 23 isn’t a lot of citations, admittedly, but I checked 3 of Ehrman’s papers published about the same time and they were cited by 2, 1 and 15, so 23 may not be so bad after all.

But that is really beside the point. If you are concerned to know the truth about Habermas’ report on what most critical scholars think about the resurrection, then finding out that not many scholars would have read Habermas’ paper is not very helpful. And I’m sure you know as well as I do how claims should be assessed, by evidence!

And it is easy to see ways such evidence might be obtained:

(i) Someone could actually do the same work Habermas did and show that he was wrong.
(ii) Or update the work since 2005 when he published and show that the situation is no longer the same.
(iii) Or reference a random sampling of scholars to show that this sample contradicts Habermas’ claim.

Habermas did the work and published in a recognised and as far as I remember (I did check once) a refereed academic journal. His is the only evidence we have. While people keep on trying to shoot the messenger, and don’t collect counter evidence, it only makes them look like they are avoiding an answer they don’t like, when surely it is seeking the truth that is what is important.

Perhaps you could get back to Ehrman again and ask him two very specific questions:

1. Do you think the historical evidence indicates that Jesus’ tomb was empty?
2. Do you think the historical evidence indicates that the disciples saw visions of Jesus, however we might explain them?

Then you would at least have evidence of one eminent scholar’s conclusions. Add that to the examples Habermas actually references, and your reading of other scholars, and you would at least be part way towards (iii) above.

Complimentary or critical comments are equally welcome, as long as they promote friendly conversation, but unacceptable comments will be deleted. To see what I regard as unacceptable, or to get help in formatting comments, please read my comment policy.

You can change your comment for 5 minutes after posting.

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.